To the Episcopalians

[gurneyhalleck1]

Very well stated. Sometimes the things that are seemingly put into place to help a certain people end up hurting them and the saddest part about it is that they don’t even realize it. The feminist movement comes to mind here.

Much-appreciated, Justy. I notice you’re ACNA. Great, what diocese? I used to attend the San Joaquin Diocese. However thanks to the liberal and semi-psychotic “Presiding Bishop” Schiori, the diocese is being sued for their property and they are WINNING. It looks as if they’ll lose it all. Lawyers, I have heard from numerous sources, are very very pessimistic about the outcome for the lowly conservative Anglicans and it looks like TEC will get their way. These courageous Anglicans will be out on their ears soon and the loons will claim the real estate to empty and unenthusastic congregants. They are expected to sell the property to secular folks effectively turning the churches into bar and grills or bookstores or office space rather than give it to the conservatives.

I agree wtih you about the feminist movement (gag)…Schiori comes to mind…a marine biologist-turned bishop. It boggles the mind? Nothing like a good, solid theological background like studying jellyfish and moray eels to get one’s mind wrapped around morality, good vs. evil, and philosophy. LOL

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I hate the labels of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. I like to think of myself as both. Sometimes life can be complicated and difficult choices must be made to promote the greater good (I completely reject Aquinas’ double effect principle. It was one of the main reasons that I left Catholicism.)

I also believe that those choices should be made by families (the father should have some say in it) and their doctors not pandering politicians many of whom probably don’t care about unborn fetus’ at all. I found it ironic that the same politicians who are pro-life were against the Children’s Health Insurance Program. It seems that many of those politicians care about fetuses until they are born and they are on their own. In this sence, I am pro-choice.

At the same time, I acknowledge that most abortions are clearly the killing of human beings. Abortion is oftentimes for dubious reasons. Killing the innocent without a good reason is murder and the government has a divine mandate to protect the innocent from un-necessary violence. In this sense, I am pro-Life.

VARC, this post is pure nonsense. You’re pro life but pro choice? Abortion is murder BUT couples should decide to commit murder together holding hands while consulting a doctor? You’re saying that you condone murder as long as it is in consultation with a physician? And opposing a Child’s Health Insurance Program is the equivalent of not caring about a child at all? Perhaps some of these politicians oppose the program because there are parts of the bill that are pork-laden? Perhaps they oppose the program because it is too costly? Perhaps they feel that we have enough welfare, foodstamps, medicaid that is in the midst of collapse and mismanagement, as well as other social programs that have awry, and we don’t need another one? Your post makes it sound like any bill that has the word “children” or “child” in it automatically needs to be signed into law? As a learned person and as an American you should know by now that almost every bill that comes through commitee in the House or Senate is ALWAYS named something that pulls at the heart strings but can often be BAD LAW. No Child Left Behind rings a bell. One can be pro-life but at the same time not of the expectation that the State needs to raise children and care for all their needs when it is the job of parents to do so. There is a big fat safety net already between medicaid, social welfare programs, food stamps, medicare, social security, and other things for kids. I am a teacher and I see it all on a weekly basis. Our county provides everything from soup to nuts, free counseling, free meals, free health care, free dentistry, free lunches, you name it.

Your post openly admits that abortion is murder but goes on to sanction it? I don’t believe I’ve ever heard such a thing. Most of the twilight zone liberals I read in here at least stick to their naive guns and say that abortion is not murder at all. At least from that vantage point (albeit a nutty one) they can try to convince themselves they’re morally in the clear and sleep well at night. The others say abortion IS murder and thus they must fight it with all their strength. I’ve never heard a self-contradiction that seeks to have it both ways? Only in the Episcopal Church could such thinking exist…

You said, “killing the innocent without a good reason is wrong…” WOW, is there EVER a good reason to kill innocents? I have yet to see one??

Also you stated that “difficult choices must be made to promote the greater good.” When is terminating a potential human being beneficial or morally helpful to the greater good? This is exactly the same principles Hitler had in his sick mind with the “final solution” agenda. Killing off the "Jewish Heinrich Himmler admitted to vomitting watching all the Jews being exterminated but he said it was a necessary evil. I just can’t fathom your thinking in this post and it truly terrifies me!

 

[VARC]

VARC, this post is pure nonsense. You’re pro life but pro choice? Abortion is murder BUT couples should decide to commit murder together holding hands while consulting a doctor? You’re saying that you condone murder as long as it is in consultation with a physician? And opposing a Child’s Health Insurance Program is the equivalent of not caring about a child at all? Perhaps some of these politicians oppose the program because there are parts of the bill that are pork-laden? Perhaps they oppose the program because it is too costly? Perhaps they feel that we have enough welfare, foodstamps, medicaid that is in the midst of collapse and mismanagement, as well as other social programs that have awry, and we don’t need another one? Your post makes it sound like any bill that has the word “children” or “child” in it automatically needs to be signed into law? As a learned person and as an American you should know by now that almost every bill that comes through commitee in the House or Senate is ALWAYS named something that pulls at the heart strings but can often be BAD LAW. No Child Left Behind rings a bell. One can be pro-life but at the same time not of the expectation that the State needs to raise children and care for all their needs when it is the job of parents to do so. There is a big fat safety net already between medicaid, social welfare programs, food stamps, medicare, social security, and other things for kids. I am a teacher and I see it all on a weekly basis. Our county provides everything from soup to nuts, free counseling, free meals, free health care, free dentistry, free lunches, you name it.

Okay, I guess I can count you out of the President’s health care reform.

Your post openly admits that abortion is murder but goes on to sanction it?

I don’t remember what I wrote but I meant to say that most abortion are killing innocent life (not necessarily murder).

You said, “killing the innocent without a good reason is wrong…” WOW, is there EVER a good reason to kill innocents? I have yet to see one??

Well, you’re not paying attention then. Dropping the bomb on hiroshima killed thousands of innocent people but it was for the greater good of ending the war. Such situations do exist where the right decision is to kill the innocent so that more innocents will live. Circumstances have to be weighed. How about a scenario where a terrorist has hijacked a plane and plans to crash it into a building populated by thousands. The right thing to do is to kill the innocents on the plane by shooting it down rather than allowing it to hit its target, is it not?

Also you stated that “difficult choices must be made to promote the greater good.” When is terminating a potential human being beneficial or morally helpful to the greater good?

I’ll give you a perfect example. A mother of four has a tubal pregnancy that is going to rupture her tubes. When that happens she is at grave risk for death leaving her living children without a mother. She can take a shot of methotrexate with will induce a chemical abortion saving her tube and possibly her life. Keep in mind now that the embryo has no chance of surving the tubal implantation. In this case, not getting the abortion would be the wrong thing to do IMO.

 

[josie_L]

VARC, this post is pure nonsense. You’re pro life but pro choice? Abortion is murder BUT couples should decide to commit murder together holding hands while consulting a doctor? You’re saying that you condone murder as long as it is in consultation with a physician? And opposing a Child’s Health Insurance Program is the equivalent of not caring about a child at all? Perhaps some of these politicians oppose the program because there are parts of the bill that are pork-laden? Perhaps they oppose the program because it is too costly? Perhaps they feel that we have enough welfare, foodstamps, medicaid that is in the midst of collapse and mismanagement, as well as other social programs that have awry, and we don’t need another one? Your post makes it sound like any bill that has the word “children” or “child” in it automatically needs to be signed into law? As a learned person and as an American you should know by now that almost every bill that comes through commitee in the House or Senate is ALWAYS named something that pulls at the heart strings but can often be BAD LAW. No Child Left Behind rings a bell. One can be pro-life but at the same time not of the expectation that the State needs to raise children and care for all their needs when it is the job of parents to do so. There is a big fat safety net already between medicaid, social welfare programs, food stamps, medicare, social security, and other things for kids. I am a teacher and I see it all on a weekly basis. Our county provides everything from soup to nuts, free counseling, free meals, free health care, free dentistry, free lunches, you name it.

Your post openly admits that abortion is murder but goes on to sanction it? I don’t believe I’ve ever heard such a thing. Most of the twilight zone liberals I read in here at least stick to their naive guns and say that abortion is not murder at all. At least from that vantage point (albeit a nutty one) they can try to convince themselves they’re morally in the clear and sleep well at night. The others say abortion IS murder and thus they must fight it with all their strength. I’ve never heard a self-contradiction that seeks to have it both ways? Only in the Episcopal Church could such thinking exist…

You said, “killing the innocent without a good reason is wrong…” WOW, is there EVER a good reason to kill innocents? I have yet to see one??

Also you stated that “difficult choices must be made to promote the greater good.” When is terminating a potential human being beneficial or morally helpful to the greater good? This is exactly the same principles Hitler had in his sick mind with the “final solution” agenda. Killing off the "Jewish Heinrich Himmler admitted to vomitting watching all the Jews being exterminated but he said it was a necessary evil. I just can’t fathom your thinking in this post and it truly terrifies me!

Maybe we need to get visualize about this and put up some pictures of aborted babies for those who support “pro choice” so they can see what it is that abortion does, what do you think, are we allowed? I’d like to see them defend it afterwards.

 

[PattyPryor]

This is not even what the thread is about!!!

 

[MelanieAnne]

This is not even what the thread is about!!!

You’re right Patty. Unfortunately it was derailed. But that doesn’t mean that important subjects aren’t being discussed.

 

[VARC]

This is not even what the thread is about!!!

I apologize for contributing to the derailing of this thread. The best resource that I have found as a newcomer to TEC is the Episcopal Handbook published Morehouse Publishing. It has the nuts and bolts of the beliefs and practices of typical Episcopalians. I don’t believe it is avialable online though. Sorry.

episcopal-life.org/ is a good site to give you the dispositions of Episcopalians on current events. It is a news/commentary site with posted comments from members.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Okay, I guess I can count you out of the President’s health care reform.

I don’t remember what I wrote but I meant to say that most abortion are killing innocent life (not necessarily murder).
come on VARC, you know what you said. You say, “I don’t remember what I wrote?” Go back and re-read it then!? Killing, murder, semantics. You can’t have it both ways…pro-choice and pro-life.

Well, you’re not paying attention then. Dropping the bomb on hiroshima killed thousands of innocent people but it was for the greater good of ending the war. Such situations do exist where the right decision is to kill the innocent so that more innocents will live. Circumstances have to be weighed. How about a scenario where a terrorist has hijacked a plane and plans to crash it into a building populated by thousands. The right thing to do is to kill the innocents on the plane by shooting it down rather than allowing it to hit its target, is it not?
How is this relevent at all to the abortion argument? Hiroshima and killing a baby? So I’m seriously supposed to compare an entire world war with millions of lives at stake, global fascism vs. democracy, axis vs. allies, and a teenage mother who decides to visit an abortion clinic because she doesn’t want to be a mom? I’m supposed to compare kamakazis and dropping the bomb on Hiroshima to a woman who already has two kids and doesn’t want a third so she aborts it in a clinic in Los Angeles? Comparing choices to be made in a global conflict with abortion is thin at best. Abortion is usually done because a woman is unwed and doesn’t want the baby, a woman is going to college and the pregnancy will get in the way of career, adulterous affairs bringing forth fruit that nobody wants, birth defects, downs syndrome that nobody wants, financial matters make a couple think they can’t handle a baby so they terminate it, you name it. There are plenty of reasons people make this chilling choice. But none of the magnitude of World War II.

I’ll give you a perfect example. A mother of four has a tubal pregnancy that is going to rupture her tubes. When that happens she is at grave risk for death leaving her living children without a mother. She can take a shot of methotrexate with will induce a chemical abortion saving her tube and possibly her life. Keep in mind now that the embryo has no chance of surving the tubal implantation. In this case, not getting the abortion would be the wrong thing to do IMO.

**The removal of the fallopian tube to save the life of a mother in an ectopic pregnancy is not considered a direct abortion in Catholic theology but rather a procedure to save the life of the mother. You’re speaking as if the Church would condemn a woman to death in this instance? Not so. You speaking as if the Church would consider this woman and the doctor in mortal sin? Not so either. **

 

[VARC]

**The removal of the fallopian tube to save the life of a mother in an ectopic pregnancy is not considered a direct abortion in Catholic theology but rather a procedure to save the life of the mother. You’re speaking as if the Church would condemn a woman to death in this instance? Not so. You speaking as if the Church would consider this woman and the doctor in mortal sin? Not so either. **

I apologize Patty but I feel I must answer this

No insurance provider is going to allow a woman to choose to have the tube removed. They deem it un-necessary surgery. The doctor will offer the MTX shot; if she refuses, it is at the peril of her own life. They are not going to give her 1000s of dollars of surgery when a $100 shot is more safe and beneficial to the woman’s health. In the real world, she has to choose between taking the shot, which cause an abortion leading to her excommunication from the RCC or she must roll the dice by waiting until her tube hemorrhages and go to the emergency room hoping they can save her life. The only moral choice for her to do in this instance is to have the abortion.

So, in reality, church law does condemn many a woman to death in this instance.

 

[Contarini]

No. That would be considered murder.

And you are certain that an unborn fetus is not a human being how?

It’s not my place…or the government’s place to decide what a woman can and cannot do with her body.

Sure it is. This reveals how superficial your thought on the issue is. The government says that a woman (or a man either, for that matter) cannot use her body to pick up a gun and shoot one of her children who is already born (or anyone else for that matter except under certain very specific circumstances). Is that wrong? Is that tyranny?

Stop using these patently false cliches and dare to engage in a *real *discussion of the issue.

All the gov’t has done is recognize that it is a personal moral issue and not a governmental issue. They’ve shifted the POV from Abortion as being a criminal problem to being a moral problem instead.

Killing innocent people is a criminal problem. Again, your position presupposes (without argument) that an unborn fetus is not a human being.

Why are you refusing to tackle this?

Sure it’s a divisive issue. So was slavery. So was desegregation. So was equality for women. So was tolerance for religious minorities. So is any issue of any importance.

Edwin

 

[josie_L]

**The removal of the fallopian tube to save the life of a mother in an ectopic pregnancy is not considered a direct abortion in Catholic theology but rather a procedure to save the life of the mother. You’re speaking as if the Church would condemn a woman to death in this instance? Not so. You speaking as if the Church would consider this woman and the doctor in mortal sin? Not so either. **

Although I agree with you on the whole, I do know as I read it somewhere that a little over 60% of women regret their abortions, furthermore, many of these women are pressured into having an abortion and/or are told lies by the abortion industry that it isn’t a “baby” just a “blob of tissue”. We have to remember that most of these girls are in their teens and scared. By the way, do you know of this pro-life Catholic (an 18 year old) by the name of Lila Rose who pretends to be pregnant so she can catch abortion providers in the act of breaking the law? It’s engrossing and quite scary really. Key in her name on you tube or google you can see her in action.

 

[VARC]

I apologize Patty but I feel I must answer this

No insurance provider is going to allow a woman to choose to have the tube removed. They deem it un-necessary surgery. The doctor will offer the MTX shot; if she refuses, it is at the peril of her own life. They are not going to give her 1000s of dollars of surgery when a $100 shot is more safe and beneficial to the woman’s health. In the real world, she has to choose between taking the shot, which cause an abortion leading to her excommunication from the RCC or she must roll the dice by waiting until her tube hemorrhages and go to the emergency room hoping they can save her life. The only moral choice for her to do in this instance is to have the abortion.

So, in reality, church law does condemn many a woman to death in this instance.

Just wanted to point out the irony of the situation. In either scenario, surgery or MTX, the embryo is lost. No credible person gives the embryo any chance of survival. Given that surgery is not an option for most women because they can’y afford it, the pro-life position is to choose the possible death of the mother by waiting for a hemorrage instead of saving her from a potentially fatal complication by choosing the abortion. This “pro-life” position would rather demand the deaths of two persons instead of accepting the death of just one by choosing abortion. Funny how that works.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I apologize Patty but I feel I must answer this

No insurance provider is going to allow a woman to choose to have the tube removed. They deem it un-necessary surgery. The doctor will offer the MTX shot; if she refuses, it is at the peril of her own life. They are not going to give her 1000s of dollars of surgery when a $100 shot is more safe and beneficial to the woman’s health. In the real world, she has to choose between taking the shot, which cause an abortion leading to her excommunication from the RCC or she must roll the dice by waiting until her tube hemorrhages and go to the emergency room hoping they can save her life. The only moral choice for her to do in this instance is to have the abortion.

So, in reality, church law does condemn many a woman to death in this instance.

With all due respect, how do you know all insurances will not cover this procedure? And in any case, the woman’s life is paramount and the Catholic Church would not give a mother a death sentence. This is your conclusion. It’s easy to paint the Church as executioners but it’s simply not the case. Some women have chosen to die in order to give life to the baby. But that is their choice, not something forced on them. Anyone who procurs an abortion willingly in any other circumstance would indeed be excommunicated. And you also don’t point out that the Church does welcome people back who have sinned anyway. It’s called reconciliation/confession and many women who have aborted their babies have come home to Catholicism, confessing their sins and finding healing.

And again, how often does this procedure need to take place? You act as if it’s happening on every block. Abortion to save the life of the mother is not as common as you point out. I will say it again, and you know this VARC, abortions are normally from unwed mothers, adulterers who don’t want the ‘baggage’ or a baby, birth defects that cause parents to not want their child, people who find the baby inconvenient, etc. The rape and incest/ectopic left wing safeguard argument is thin as paper and a scare tactic to keep the government sanctioning holocausts.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re right Patty. Unfortunately it was derailed. But that doesn’t mean that important subjects aren’t being discussed.

Melanie, I love your “location” on your profile! People’s Republic of California. Priceless! LOL…California here, too, and you’re right! Have a great afternoon, comrade! LOL

 

[josie_L]

With all due respect, how do you know all insurances will not cover this procedure? And in any case, the woman’s life is paramount and the Catholic Church would not give a mother a death sentence. This is your conclusion. It’s easy to paint the Church as executioners but it’s simply not the case. Some women have chosen to die in order to give life to the baby. But that is their choice, not something forced on them. Anyone who procurs an abortion willingly in any other circumstance would indeed be excommunicated. And you also don’t point out that the Church does welcome people back who have sinned anyway. It’s called reconciliation/confession and many women who have aborted their babies have come home to Catholicism, confessing their sins and finding healing.

And again, how often does this procedure need to take place? You act as if it’s happening on every block. Abortion to save the life of the mother is not as common as you point out. I will say it again, and you know this VARC, abortions are normally from unwed mothers, adulterers who don’t want the ‘baggage’ or a baby, birth defects that cause parents to not want their child, people who find the baby inconvenient, etc. The rape and incest/ectopic left wing safeguard argument is thin as paper and a scare tactic to keep the government sanctioning holocausts.

It’s less than 2% of abortion cases (endangerment of the mother) if I’m not mistaken.

 

[VARC]

With all due respect, how do you know all insurances will not cover this procedure?

Come on gurney, don’t be naive. Just call your insurance company and ask them if they would cover it.

Some women have chosen to die in order to give life to the baby. But that is their choice, not something forced on them.

I would argue that that is a morally irresponsible choice depending on the circumstances of their lives. If a woman has other children, she has a moral obligation to provide for them. If she knew that their is no hope for the embryo, which there isn’t in tubal pregnancies, she has to choose to the morally best outcome which doesn’t needlessly deprive children of their mother. Just my opinion.

And again, how often does this procedure need to take place? You act as if it’s happening on every block. Abortion to save the life of the mother is not as common as you point out.

That is completely beside the point. The fact that it happens at all should be enough for you to consider how appropriate it is to lay such a moral burden on a person. Catholics often times don’t wish to acknowlege complex moral situations. They like everytrhing black and white. The fact that you even suggest that the frequency of abortions to save life is low implies that you are indeed willing to sacrifice the innocent lives of the few women whose abortions are necessary to maintain the “pro-life” party line against the radical abortion advocates.

And BTW, tubal ectopic pregnancies are not uncommon. Anywhere from 1 in 40 to 1 in 100 pregnancies are tubal.

I will say it again, and you know this VARC, abortions are normally from unwed mothers, adulterers who don’t want the ‘baggage’ or a baby, birth defects that cause parents to not want their child, people who find the baby inconvenient, etc. The rape and incest/ectopic left wing safeguard argument is thin as paper and a scare tactic to keep the government sanctioning holocausts.

I acknowlege that the vast majority of surgical abortions are the intentional killing of human persons for dubious or selfish reasons, and therefore I consider them murder. I wish the government would do something about elective abortions.

Perhaps you can acknowlege that some abortions, even if it be few, are the killing of innocent persons for good reasons (saving the woman’s life) and not necessarily murder and the morality of those abortions is legitimately debatable.

Unfortunately Rome will not allow you to admit that.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Although I agree with you on the whole, I do know as I read it somewhere that a little over 60% of women regret their abortions, furthermore, many of these women are pressured into having an abortion and/or are told lies by the abortion industry that it isn’t a “baby” just a “blob of tissue”. We have to remember that most of these girls are in their teens and scared. By the way, do you know of this pro-life Catholic (an 18 year old) by the name of Lila Rose who pretends to be pregnant so she can catch abortion providers in the act of breaking the law? It’s engrossing and quite scary really. Key in her name on you tube or google you can see her in action.

Josie, the key word in your post is “industry”. The real blockade to any change in policy after all these years is the “industry” that has grown up around abortion. I submit that there are many women that underwent abortion, years ago, that now regret their decision but don’t want to admit it because to do so would be to criticize themselves, something they are reluctant to do. But in the meantime, a huge industry has grown up. Abortion is a huge industry, it employs lots of people. None of those people want their jobs to end, or be reduced.

Abortion rights has never been put to a vote, it has never been considered, by itself, in a vote of Congress. The closest it has ever come to being voted on by the people has been in a vote by a Congressperson for a Supreme Court justice. This is why our country has been in a civil war over this issue for decades.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Melanie, I love your “location” on your profile! People’s Republic of California. Priceless! LOL…California here, too, and you’re right! Have a great afternoon, comrade! LOL

Bless your loving Catholic heart!

 

[MelanieAnne]

And you are certain that an unborn fetus is not a human being how?

Sure it is. This reveals how superficial your thought on the issue is. The government says that a woman (or a man either, for that matter) cannot use her body to pick up a gun and shoot one of her children who is already born (or anyone else for that matter except under certain very specific circumstances). Is that wrong? Is that tyranny?

Stop using these patently false cliches and dare to engage in a *real *discussion of the issue.

Killing innocent people is a criminal problem. Again, your position presupposes (without argument) that an unborn fetus is not a human being.

Why are you refusing to tackle this?

Sure it’s a divisive issue. So was slavery. So was desegregation. So was equality for women. So was tolerance for religious minorities. So is any issue of any importance.

Edwin

Contarini, I admire you and your faithfulness.

AJ appears to not want to delve into the specifics of this issue, being more content with media generalities. I submit you should not expect a thoughtful answer, sorry!

 

[MelanieAnne]

Although I agree with you on the whole, I do know as I read it somewhere that a little over 60% of women regret their abortions, furthermore, many of these women are pressured into having an abortion and/or are told lies by the abortion industry that it isn’t a “baby” just a “blob of tissue”. We have to remember that most of these girls are in their teens and scared. By the way, do you know of this pro-life Catholic (an 18 year old) by the name of Lila Rose who pretends to be pregnant so she can catch abortion providers in the act of breaking the law? It’s engrossing and quite scary really. Key in her name on you tube or google you can see her in action.

This is also my experience. Many women (not I) have had abortions in the last few decades, since it was the law of the land, for a variety of “reasons”. Based on my discussions with such persons, I strongly suspect, but cannot confirm for sure, that the vast majority continue to support “abortion rights” because they are unwilling to look at what happened in their past and conclude it was wrong. They don’t want to feel guilty for something they did a long time ago. I have a lot of (albeit anecdotal) evidence to support that, were they to be able to go back in time and change their actions, they would. I submit that the “guilty” factor is a part of the support of abortion rights. When HUMAN RIGHTS become the issue, I have seen, in my own life, the story change. The key is that some people do not view the unborn child as a person. When they do, the situation changes.

People need to stop calling them “fetuses”, that demeans them, they’re “babies”!